STRA - Strayer Education

[klarmanite]

 

I'm thinking there's value in several for-profit names long term. The short interest in some of these names is staggering. The main points of my STRA write-up are summarized below. Go to my website to see the full write-up: www.klarmanite.com/write-ups

 

 

ELEVATOR PITCH - STRA US Equity

 

•      We’ve seen this before: an industry temporarily perceived as broken with investors fleeing the stocks en masse because of fear of regulatory changes. Remember Macondo? In 2010, there were days where there was literally no bid side in high quality driller names like Seadrill (SDRL), which subsequently rose well over 100%. I believe the same sort of buying opportunity is present in quality for-profit education stocks today.

 

•      The regulatory bear case for non-profits was accurate, but has played out to a large extent. More recently the bear case seems to have shifted to a perception of increasing competition.  I think the impact from non-profits and MOOCS will probably not be as substantial as many fear. Consensus opinion seems to be that competitive pressures and regulation has led to irreversible enrollment declines in the for-profit industry, but the evidence suggests a (natural) cyclical downturn after a boom period and elevated long term unemployment is to blame. That is a much less dire situation, since long term demand for higher education in the US looks healthy.

 

•      Underestimated and deeply out of favor company with short interest currently > 30% of float. Expectations really are incredibly low: A reverse DCF with a 10% discount rate, 0% forecast period growth over the next ten years and 0% terminal growth for another 10 years yields 46 USD. Comparing that with today’s price of 43 USD, we can safely say that Mr Market is not optimistic when it comes to Strayer’s future.

 

•      STRA is dirt cheap based on normalized earnings power and cash flow metrics. My estimated fair value of STRA is 72% higher than today’s price of 43 at 74 USD. I base this on the average of a DCF valuation, an EPV (Earnings Power Value aka “no growth” valuation) and the likely value of STRA in a buyout scenario.

 

•      Strayer has best-in-class management and its new graduation fund program will improve its value proposition while at the same time strengthening its competitive position.

 

•      Increased regulation and oversight will benefit the more serious players like Strayer longer term by creating increased barriers to entry, and put the diploma mills out of business. I think Strayer is the best for-profit play going forward because it has both cost advantages from scale, several recruitment channels that do not depend on aggressive marketing, a high percentage of degree students which bring more recurring revenue streams  and a reputation for quality (as far as for-profits go) – a potent combination.

 

Feedback on my thesis is appreciated.

 

/K

 

[constructive]

The regulatory bear case for non-profits was accurate, but has played out to a large extent.

 

There's two parts to the regulatory bear case, right? Accreditation and federal loan access. How does STRA score on those?

 

Are the comments here accurate? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Strayer_University_an_accredited_online_school

 

It seems like the regulatory issues are ongoing, not played out yet: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/for-profit-colleges-fear-another-attack-95097.html

[ASTA]

My question is why invest in a general for profit university. Instead buy a specialized one like coco or linc as the future for nurses and other specialized trades hands it self as being the most competitive against traditional schools.

[mcliu]

Earnings seems like it's going to take quite a hit over the next two years. Enrollment and tuition are dropping quite rapidly. Shouldn't you factor in negative growth in your DCF?

[jschembs]

I would agree with ASTA. I owned LINC off and on during the past year, but ultimately sold because I just don't like the fact these entities are so heavily reliant on subsidized financing. I believed LINC had a differentiating characteristic focusing on training for blue collar trade jobs, where the results should be more tangible and applicable to specific jobs after graduation, and they are not competing against the amorphous bachelor's degree with minimal applicable skills. Most people attending for-profit schools (and many attending the more traditional not-for-profits, as well) graduate with degrees like marketing, business administration, communications, political science, et cetera, which provide little preparation for relevant careers. I think both types of higher education face serious headwinds as increasingly question the value provided versus the incessantly rising costs.

 

The economics of for-profit institutions are incredible. High returns on invested capital, minimal fixed and working capital requirements, and (for much of their histories) a consumer backed by taxpayers. These returns are only as good as the financing offered by the U.S. government, however, and my worry is the government decides to implement a payment structure that forces lower ROICs across the industry. I'm probably giving the government far too much credit, but this doesn't seem to be an industry that should consistently earn ROICs so far above other industries.

[klarmanite]

Thanks to everyone for your replies.

 

As for the negative growth suggestion in the DCF, I think we are fairly close to the bottom in enrollments. I debated factoring in a decline as you sugget for a while, but decided not to and instead adjusted my future growth estimates downward. That is technically incorrect but I believe it produces about the same results. The reasons are that 1. I don't like the "faux precision" aspect of trying to pinpoint a precise bottom in FCF and instead opted to adjust future growth downward. Your point is well taken though  - maybe I should have.

 

(An added, somewhat relevant point here is that when spring 2014 rolls around, comps in the industry will get easier and I suspect extrapolating enrollment declines much from her is wrong).

 

As for the regulatory aspects, my sense is that STRA is not at risk on any of these dimensions. They are accredited to the extent that they need to be. As far as new regulations go, I think this will be much less severe the people fear. The fact that suggested changes are "dramatic" does not mean that these changes will pass political processes.

 

As for COCO, I own that in my private account, so I am not negative in the least. But with the potential reward there comes risk as well.

 

As for the uselessness of a STRA bachelor or MBA: I don't think it's useless at all to get a degree in business, accounting or computer science even if it's from a second-rate institution. I think STRAs corporate connections are proof that it is not.

 

As an aside, I think much of the aggression toward for-profits is ridiculous. So far, I haven't seen anyone making waves about guidance counselors at monstrously expensive non-profits like say NYU giving terrible advice to students. I mean, these people recommend majors like "gender studies" for God's sake. (Btw, I went to NYU but did not choose that particular major ;)).

 

 

 

 

[LC]

I'm still doing my homework on this...I'm not sure how I feel about a company with 100 facilities, especially if the trend is towards online learning.

 

I also had an interesting discussion today regarding opportunity cost in terms of education. When the job market is strong and unemployment is low, there is a larger opportunity cost of going to school vs. working. When the economy is weak, the job market is weak, then the opportunity cost of working is much lower versus enrolling.

 

So I'm not sure how this dynamic will play out in the coming years for Strayer and other for-profit educators, especially the ones more focused on job training and placement (versus a non-profit education where "learning" is seen as a main goal).

[DTEJD1997]

 

I also had an interesting discussion today regarding opportunity cost in terms of education. When the job market is strong and unemployment is low, there is a larger opportunity cost of going to school vs. working. When the economy is weak, the job market is weak, then the opportunity cost of working is much lower versus enrolling.

 

So I'm not sure how this dynamic will play out in the coming years for Strayer and other for-profit educators, especially the ones more focused on job training and placement (versus a non-profit education where "learning" is seen as a main goal).

 

LC:

 

I am going to suggest that the cost benefit analysis of getting an education has shifted radically in the last few years.

 

A lot of education is simply not worth getting.  At least from an economic standpoint.  This includes both "traditional" and for profit education.  The cost of education is simply shocking, and has a very poor economic return.

 

A good example of "traditional" education is Wake Forest University.  This is a fine, well regarded school.  A graduate will most likely get a very solid education if they apply themselves. 

 

A discussion I had with a young mother told me that Wake Forest is $50k a year once you take into account books, housing, and expenses.  They would have to borrow most of that.  Her son, while being intelligent and hardworking, is not quite good enough to get scholarships...so he would be paying full sticker price or close to it.  If they have to borrow (which they do), the education at Wake Forest does not make sense.  How much will a Wake Forest graduate make starting out?  $30k, $40k, $50k, more?  I do not know....but I would hazard a guess that $40k to $50k is probably a good starting point....of course this vary on the subject studied. 

 

The end result, is that if you have to borrow to attend Wake Forest, it is not worth it.  The student will have too large a debt burden to repay.  How are they going to repay $200K+ in student loan debt?  I guess it could be done if you lived a live of privation for an extended number of years, but why do that?  Why subject yourself to that level of work and debt to get an education?

 

There are numerous lesser rated state and community colleges that are nowhere near as expensive...but Wake Forest is not a unique example.

 

As for "for profit", it can be even worse.  I had some employees who went to a Washington Post subsidiary to get "A+" computer certification.  It only cost them somewhere around $15k.  The funny thing is, most jobs they would get utilizing that "A+" certification, paid LESS THAN WHAT THEY WERE CURRENTLY MAKING.  They were working in the warehouse and doing shipping/receiving.  Of course, they weren't told that going into the program.  They were told that they could get jobs paying $20/hr. or more.  So they graciously put in their notice that they would have to quit once they completed the program.  They completed the program, but they didn't quit!  In my area, "A+" technicians get paid MAYBE $10/hour.

 

The end result is that the ONLY value of the "A+" certification was that it is a stepping stone to getting more/better computer certifications.

 

They are stuck with their debts now, and have to make sacrifices to pay it off.  They are not using the education they got...They are not happy graduates...

 

So the end result is that education has become SO EXPENSIVE, it frequently does not make sense if you have to borrow/pay for it.

 

I don't see how the education industrial complex can survive in it's current form.

[LC]

I am going to suggest that the cost benefit analysis of getting an education has shifted radically in the last few years.

 

DTEJD1997,

 

I agree with the spirit of your argument but not the details. I don't think a few years has a bearing on the overall utility of a college degree. Strayer has been around since the 1890s.

 

The idea that a college education is not the best investment in terms of a cost-benefit analysis is not a new one. Ten years ago I heard it from a high school teacher. At that time the numbers were less inflated, but the thesis was still the same. I don't think that will change for the majority of the public anytime soon.

 

I think the problem is deeper. Forty, fifty years ago a college education was an important milestone. Not everyone had one. Nor did they need one. The world has changed since the 1970s. But one of the problems is today's graduates had parents who did not grow up in the 1990s or 2000s. They had parents who grew up in the 70s. So your parents think a college degree is a helluva good ticket! And 16 and 17 year old kids...it is a rare person of that age to go against their parent's wisdom.

 

Which brings us to today...with tons of college educated "underemployed" people whose degree isn't doing them a bit of good. But I think it may be too easy to say this a function of "today's economy", and "there just aren't enough jobs". It's not like society has been always awash in jobs until the last five years.

 

So is this problem cyclical? If so, Strayer has a history dating back to the 1890s. They have seen and survived cycles. They are the best in breed in terms of for-profit educators.

 

The other argument is that there has been a permanent shift in the industry. What are the implications of that? The next generation being educated online via TED talks from their parent's basement? Or going straight to trade schools?

 

Whatever the case, the next generation will have to be educated. What will they pay for that? How will they pay it? Or will today's "underemployed" be influencing their children not go to to college?

 

My gut tells me education will, in fact, continue. And folks will still be paying to sit in a classroom, or go to office hours, or study in a peer group. Even if the education world does go completely online, I think whatever the case, Strayer will continue educating into the future.

[MYDemaray]

Many of our competitors, both domestic and

foreign, were stepping up to the same kind of expenditures and,

once enough companies did so, their reduced costs became the

baseline for reduced prices industrywide.  Viewed individually,

each company’s capital investment decision appeared cost-

effective and rational; viewed collectively, the decisions

neutralized each other and were irrational (just as happens when

each person watching a parade decides he can see a little better

if he stands on tiptoes).  After each round of investment, all

the players had more money in the game and returns remained

anemic.

 

- Warren Buffett, Shareholder Letter 1985

 

As long as desirable jobs require college degrees, people will keep standing on their tip-toes to obtain those degrees.

[jberkshire01]

If you haven't seen it, the Congressional report on for-profit colleges is full of great information on the industry and the individual companies: http://www.harkin.senate.gov/help/forprofitcolleges.cfm

 

An interesting comparison to look at STRA versus LOPE. STRA's comments in the investigation were better than most, while LOPE got some of the worst marks. And with similar revenues, LOPE has 3x+ the market value.

[DTEJD1997]

As long as desirable jobs require college degrees, people will keep standing on their tip-toes to obtain those degrees.

 

No doubt a college degree is a desired thing....

 

However, what was the cost back in 1985?  Nothing like what it is today.

 

The cost is getting so high, it makes NO SENSE.  Are you going to spend $200k to get an undergraduate degree?  What are you going to make with that degree?  $50k a year?

 

I think very soon you will see people start migrating towards less expensive state schools and community colleges.  I also think that you will see people leaving the educational system altogether.

 

if you spend $200k, you could set up a business, start buying rental properties, or do a host of other things...

 

Education has changed, probably permanently.  This is not a cyclical thing, it is a structural change.

[MYDemaray]

As long as desirable jobs require college degrees, people will keep standing on their tip-toes to obtain those degrees.

 

No doubt a college degree is a desired thing....

 

However, what was the cost back in 1985?  Nothing like what it is today.

 

The cost is getting so high, it makes NO SENSE.  Are you going to spend $200k to get an undergraduate degree?  What are you going to make with that degree?  $50k a year?

 

I think very soon you will see people start migrating towards less expensive state schools and community colleges.  I also think that you will see people leaving the educational system altogether.

 

if you spend $200k, you could set up a business, start buying rental properties, or do a host of other things...

 

Education has changed, probably permanently.  This is not a cyclical thing, it is a structural change.

 

I think people are looking at the lifetime NPV of earnings.  I also think there is a lot of hope tied into the degree....people want a better life and hope a college degree is the answer.  For instance the lady who cuts my hair ended up going to APOL to get a degree in business administration.  Will it get her anywhere?  I doubt it.  She lives on the south side of Chicago and is trying to do whatever it takes to get a better life.  Will all those new employees in advertising and publishing earn an adequate return on their 80 hour work weeks?  Certainly not.  But they all want a shot at the brass ring. 

 

A lot of life is winner take all, yet people make irrational decisions and over-commit because they think their blood/sweat/money will be worth it if they land on top -- yet they fail to probability adjust for this outcome.  People, companies, lobbyists -- they all fail to probability adjust for outcomes.  I mean if you don't go to a top 10/20 law or business school, is it really worth it?  Buffett cited this irrational competition in commodity industries and you see it all the time....look at natgas or shipping in the last five years.  Producers don't price to the lowest marginal cost...they drive prices below that to simply cover the cost of not getting foreclosed on by their lenders.  As long as people want to end up at top schools, top law firms, top i-banks, the top 1% of whatever...I think that people will irrationally compete to get there.  Just my opinion.

 

BTW, I have no position in any education company/institution.  I hear what you are saying and it makes sense...I guess I'm just highlighting the counter-argument.  Given that I have two small children I hope you're right...I certainly don't want to fork over $500k for college.

[klarmanite]

"I think very soon you will see people start migrating towards less expensive state schools and community colleges.  I also think that you will see people leaving the educational system altogether.

 

if you spend $200k, you could set up a business, start buying rental properties, or do a host of other things...

 

Education has changed, probably permanently.  This is not a cyclical thing, it is a structural change."

 

 

You are right that people will want to go there to a greater extent as cost inflation has been crazy in higher ed. But the migration to state/community schools will be impeded by the fact that state and community colleges are simpoly incapable of satisfying the normalized demand for higher ed. The capacity there is unlikely to expand since state budgets are strained in many cases. Federal grants etc allow people to go to private schools instead, which are left to fill demand. And private not for profits are just as expensive as for-profits and in many cases worse.

 

Currently, college demand is in a slump, I suspect both because of for-profit overenrollment and the credit crisis which had lots of folks go back to other schools as well simultaneously. This will normalize, IMO, but it may take time.

 

So I guess I disagree that this is clearly a structural thing. Part of the reason for the enrolment declines looks cyclical when you look at the numbers.

[MYDemaray]

To your point DTEJD1997: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323893004579055332692755074.html?mod=ITP_pageone_1

[DTEJD1997]

Currently, college demand is in a slump, I suspect both because of for-profit overenrollment and the credit crisis which had lots of folks go back to other schools as well simultaneously. This will normalize, IMO, but it may take time.

 

So I guess I disagree that this is clearly a structural thing. Part of the reason for the enrolment declines looks cyclical when you look at the numbers.

 

One point I forgot to mention is that there is ANOTHER problem with schooling...Some of the graduates are not even getting jobs.  Alternatively, some amount of graduates are getting jobs FAR outside of their area of study.  These jobs are frequently taken simply to be able to pay the bills.

 

So you have a problem that going to school does not even guarantee you a job.  Of course it never did...but now you have a percentage of graduates who "did everything right" and can't get a job, OR they are working a job that does not require any schooling (or a minimal amount). 

 

I hope the unemployment & underemployment issue may be cyclical, but I'm not even sure of that...

 

If you look at education as an investment, the returns do not look good at a LOT of schools.

 

What are the odds of graduating?  85%?  What are odds of getting a "good" job?  85%?

 

What will the cost of education be in 10 years or so?  Will you have a good amount of schools that cost $100k a year?  What will be the average starting wage for their graduates?

 

Interesting times are coming up!

[klarmanite]

That we can agree on, DTE.

 

H

[DTEJD1997]

Hmmm:

 

As we speak, Strayer is advertising HEAVILY on the internet, especially Hulu.

 

They are running a string of different commercials that are saying something to the effect of:

 

"We know education costs too much.  Cost should not keep you from getting an education. we are starting a new 'graduation fund' that will pay for up to 25% of your education costs"

 

I have seen at least a dozen of these in the past two days, they are in heavy rotation.

 

What is to prevent them from gradually increasing costs over the course of 4 years...so the increases are offset by this special promotion?  Interesting marketing tool...

 

Has anyone else seen these?

 

Thoughts?

 

 

[no_free_lunch]

I agree with DTE, I am concerned that the economy will start to shift to just needing as many people.  I mean it always has been happening but we have just kept increasing consumption.  It seems logical that you would hit a tipping point eventually.  Then again the jobs that do exist will likely require some education. 

 

The central question, it seems, is whether these new industries will employ people in the same ways and at the same rate as the lost industries. I fear that they will not. And I am certain that they will not employ unskilled labor at the same rate as the industries we have lost. Software engineers, designers, writers, analysts, etc should be in strong demand for as far as my eye can see. But those who do not have specific skills are in for a much tougher job environment and have been for quite a while.

 

http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2013/09/jobs-coming-or-going.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AVc+%28A+VC%29

[LC]

"We know education costs too much.  Cost should not keep you from getting an education. we are starting a new 'graduation fund' that will pay for up to 25% of your education costs"

...

What is to prevent them from gradually increasing costs over the course of 4 years...so the increases are offset by this special promotion?  Interesting marketing tool...

 

I haven't seen the specific ads but I am aware of their policy. It is one of my reasons for not having pulled the trigger, as it could represent a structural change in the industry versus a temporary issue. I am still undecided on this issue...I think in terms of my valuation my only choice here (as I've spent about 2+ weeks internally debating the issue) is to attempt to discount the probability of it occurring and working that into my mental model of what the company is worth. I have no doubt that Strayer University will exist, whether that will be in the same form as the last 12 years or adapting to a lower revenue business model is the issue.

 

It does help that the have a large capital base (100+ schools) and an increasing count of online students. Capex should level off and presumably their operating costs for teachers etc. will come down.

[DTEJD1997]

It does help that the have a large capital base (100+ schools) and an increasing count of online students. Capex should level off and presumably their operating costs for teachers etc. will come down.

 

The main expense for these schools are not teachers, it is marketing.  Strayer is CURRENTLY spending a TON on marketing.  I am seeing their ads MULTIPLE times every day.  I was just at the health club, and they have a dozen+ TV's.  I watch them for an hour while I'm on the elliptical.  Saw an ad for Strayer twice...

 

The more I think about it, the more I am realizing Strayer's marketing is pretty slick.  In order to get the discount, you've got to stay continuously enrolled until you finish.  You can't take a semester off.  You also have to get your degree.  It would be interesting to see the graduation rate.  The Washington Post claims Strayer has a graduation rate of 15%.  So only about 15% of students would get the 25% discount?

 

It was also published that Strayer spent $1,300 per student on direct education costs, $2,500 per student on marketing, and $4,500 in profit for 2011.

 

How much longer can Strayer spent $1,300 on direct education costs vs. $6,800 in profit and marketing?

 

Clearly the cost of teachers is a relatively minor point for Strayer.  I don't think they will be able to save much more there...  If Strayer has a large obligation for a lot of leases, that might be a competitive disadvantage, especially if online picks up OR total enrollment declines.

 

Education simply can't cost what it does, nor can it expand much further.  Most people get an education to secure gainful employment and to move into the middle class.  That is not possible with a certain percentage of education today (think undergrad costing $50k a year). 

 

Is there going to be a structural change in how schools operate?  There is NOT A DOUBT IN MY MIND.  The only question is to what extent and how fast it comes. 

 

 

[LC]

Heh, it USED to be marketing...they reclassified expenses in "marketing & admissions expense" in 2010 into other expense categories...the more I dig deeper the less I like about this industry (surprise). Some figures for Strayer:

 

 

% of students taking full online courses (2012): ~30%

 

2006-2007 Staffing:

Student Services (teachers etc): 450

Recruiters: 395

Career Services: 150

 

Students Enrolled in 2008-9: 41,000

# of these students withdrawn by mid 2010: 13,250 (32%)

 

Graduation Rate (2010) : 13.9%

 

_____

 

So let me summarize the model:

 

Spend a ton on advertising to (pardon the judgement) generally unmotivated people during midday and late late night

Enroll these people via cheap, easy credit, and utilizing a force of 400 recruiters (vs. 450 teachers. TOTAL)

Offer online classes so they don't even have to go to class

32% drop out after 1-1.5 years

Another 55% drop out over the rest of their time at Strayer

14% graduate

 

Pretty sketchy business model. And this is THE BEST of the for-profit schools.

 

Frankly, their new tuition model DTEJT1997 refers to sounds like they're offering discounted tuition to get their %s up in order to get the gov't off their back. Again, these are the best of the best.

 

Well, I think I made my decision at 1 am here....(now let's watch the stock rally 30%)

[thelads]

I think it's valid to say the payoff in general to a degree has diminished. Jim Rogers mentioned in an interview some time ago a similar thing about mba's. In the 60's something like less than a thousand of mba's a year were produced. Almost all in the US. Now it's tens of thousands every year around the world. It's been devalued.

 

With that said, I think there is room for niches in education. Strayer aimed squarely at working professionals who were finding it hard to climb the internal corporate ladder without a degree. Company mandates may require it, and it demonstrates commitment. Those two things are important. Strayer seems to amongst, if not the best at catering to this. They are careful to make sure the students are capable of the workload and have done remedial work if necessary before beginning. So much of making this work for people who failed in school for whatever reason, building there confidence and making them ready, so as to avoid discouragement is critically important. In my earlier years I dealt with people going through a similar situation, having fared poorly in high school, for a variety of reasons. Instilling Confidence and appropriate aim for the students is crucial. The capacity for them to do it is their, but you need to build their belief. Strayer seems very focused on this, and I think this is one of a few reasons there failure metrics relating to students is so much better.

 

I think it's important to seperate students coming out of high school who are confident,

Completely capable and looking to optimize the economics of getting a degree, as compared to people who fell through the cracks, had confidence crushed and are coming back to try again later in life, probably as part f a career inside a corporation. Moving from line worker to management for instance, at a place like fed ex. Those are different customer types and need to be handled differently.

 

This applies to MOOC'S too. Those may well, if accredited become a very wise and cheap choice for excellent students who are good independent learners. I preferred to skip lectures and lean myself. But the is certainly not a goo idea or everyone.

 

I think one thing I need to be more mindful of, and perhaps most of us in the board, is to project our own capabilities our preferences onto others. I would hazard to guess that the overwhelming majority of people on here got through college with relative ease. And same for high school too. Strayer isn't really aimed at us. Anyhow, I hope I didn't offend anyone with this post.

 

 

My own view is that they serve a niche. They seem to do a pretty good job. Pure online degree without capacity for in class support may not suit that niche, and also, a long operatin history and respect from a lot of employers, were there had been visual mobility in the places they work (fed ex, if they saw there boss succeed internally having gone to strayer) convey respectability. My guess is that this is likely a stable if not growing group. 

 

The arguments for a MOOC's are valid, but may be slow to grow. I never see the open university from the uk mentioned in these discussions. That's been around since the 70's and it's free. My brother in law (now departed) got a degree in physics there. Went on to get a phd in imperial college. Impressive indeed, but very very rare. It suits a small subset, though I agree, the will likel change and grow too.

[stahleyp]

http://www.beyondproxy.com/strayer-education-analysis/

[DTEJD1997]

http://www.beyondproxy.com/strayer-education-analysis/

 

An interesting and well written report.

 

I don't buy any of it, and I think the author has made a HUGE mistake and is just digging themselves deeper into it.

 

Here is what so many people just simply do not understand...the educational model is BROKEN.  Society simply can't commit the resources that it has in the past.  Bills have to be paid, pensions need funding...

 

I am also, deeply, deeply skeptical of the "quality" of education of ANY of the "for profits".  Heck, I'm deeply skeptical of the quality of education from most "traditional" schools.

 

Even if there wasn't a problem with all the "flim-flam" going on in "for profit", who is going to spend $70k to get a degree from an online school? what is the end result?

 

Will it help you operate the Fryolater any better?  Will it help you stock shelves?  Most jobs that are being created simply do NOT require a college education.

 

The jobs that DO require a college education are not going to "for profit" graduates.  They aren't even going to graduates from lower ranked state schools!

 

Education is in shambles and after seeing, experiencing, and knowing participants (both educators & students), I just can't see how this will end well...